Himachal Pradesh High Court
Yashpal vs Sakshi Sharma & Another on 9 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO Nos. 149 of 2026
Date of decision : 09.04.2026.
Yashpal ...Petitioner.
.
Versus
Sakshi Sharma & another ...Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.
of
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Advocate.
rt
For the respondents: Nemo
________________________________________
Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)
The present petition arises out of the order as passed by
the learned Senior Civil Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P, whereby
the petitioner’s right to file rejoinder to the application under Order
39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.PC has been closed vide its order dated
07.01.2025 and subsequent order dated 18.01.2025, whereby the
application filed under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 9 read with
Section 151 C.PC for the grant of necessary leave to file
supplementary pleadings by way of rejoinder to the application
under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C was rejected .
2. The facts of the case are that the present plaintiff filed a
suit for grant of decree of permanent, perpetual and prohibitory
injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, family members,
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 15/04/2026 20:29:54 :::CIS
-2-
servants etc. from interfering, creating nuisance, claiming any right
over the residential houses and the suit land comprising in Khata
.
No.129 min, Khatauni No. 164 Min. Khasra Nos 1043,1044,1084 area
measuring 00-20-49 hec.Khata No. 132 Min Khatauni No. 167 Min,
Khasra Nos 1083 area measuring 00-06-57 hectares situated in
Mohal Shivpuri Patwar Circle, Samnoli, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra
of
H.P. Alongwith the plaint an application under Order 39 Rule 1& 2 of
C.P.C was also filed.
3.
rt
The defendants filed written statement and the same
was taken on record. In the present petition the copy of the same has
been placed on record as Ext.P-3. Similarly, reply to the application
under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C was also filed by the defendants on
29.09.2024. Though, it is an admitted fact that numerous
opportunities were granted to the plaintiff/petitioner to file the
rejoinder to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C.
However, the same could not be filed by the petitioner.
4. The learned trial Court has rejected the prayer of the
petitioner to file the rejoinder and subsequently the application
under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C has also been
dismissed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that delay in filing the rejoinder to the application under Order 39
Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C is on account of the fact that the
petitioner/plaintiff was waiting for the written statement so that all
::: Downloaded on – 15/04/2026 20:29:54 :::CIS
-3-
the averments as made in the written statement are covered in the
rejoinder. He further submits that the Court below has adopted a
.
hypertechnical approach, and instead of considering the application,
the same has been rejected summarily.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
have gone through the case file carefully.
of
6. From the perusal of the order sheets, impugned orders
as challenged in the present proceedings,there is no infirmity in the
rt
impugned orders, however, as a matter of indulgence and in order to
do substantial justice, the petitioner is permitted to file rejoinder to
the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C within a period of
four week from today, positively. The indulgence is being shown to
the petitioner subject to the payment of cost of Rs.15000/- to the
respondent.
7. Consequently, the present petition is disposed off by
granting one opportunity to the petitioner to file rejoinder within a
period of four weeks from today. The learned trial Court is directed
to take up the matter on 05.05.2026 and to proceed in the matter
accordingly.
8. It is made clear that in case cost of Rs.15,000/- is not
paid by the petitioner to the respondents, in that event, the benefit
of this order shall not be granted to him.
::: Downloaded on – 15/04/2026 20:29:54 :::CIS
-4-
The petition stands disposed off alongwith pending
application(s), if any.
.
(Romesh Verma)
9 April 2026
th
Judge
(Veena)
of
rt
::: Downloaded on – 15/04/2026 20:29:54 :::CIS